User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Oct 2006

Thanks

Thanks for the useful tip on redshift. WilliamKF 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the pointer to the paper that includes distances to galaxies. WilliamKF 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already doing that, per your footnotes that led me to do so before I even got your first message. BTW, is there a place on NED that gives distance? WilliamKF 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the prime go mid number as in 6′.3 as opposed to 6.3′? Or should it be in seconds as in 6′ 18″? WilliamKF 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I use for radius of a Galaxy, half its widest or half its thinest or the average of the extremes? Also, given the distance in parsecs, what is good formula from visual arcseconds to distance it spans? WilliamKF 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using this: distance × sin( diameter_angle / 2 ) = xx kly. radius based on the wider size since I imagine the thinner one is due to inclination towards us.

If you are going to propose radius be removed from galaxy template, might I suggest that we also add parsec distance in addition to ly distance like some other templates (like cluster) have already? WilliamKF 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Tonry et al. the distance modulus (m-M) from Column 10 from Table 1 has a second number to right. For NGC 4826 this is 29.37 0.20. Do I take the second number as margin of error? As in value is 29.37 +/- 0.20? WilliamKF 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like the formula for uncertainty. I made a guess at it for NGC 4826 and got +/- 2million. I computed the formula for the value given plus the error and took the difference to be 2 million. WilliamKF 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the spitzer image since I could not find any other public domain ones for NGC 3627. If there is a better image out there (i.e. normal color) I couldn't find one that was good quality and public domain. WilliamKF 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do point me to the "FITS files in the optical wavebands (BVR) that (I think) qualifies as public domain". WilliamKF 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have dropped some items from the Galaxy template, I'm wondering if we should add any? For example, should the distance modulus be added as a typical fact that one would want easy access to? WilliamKF 23:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding distance modulus being redundant, their is precident for this in the template including both light years and parsecs. I'm thinking the distance modulus is handy to have calculated for you since for example you can use it to derive the absolute magnatude. WilliamKF 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw the empty parens but didn't think it a big issue since I have seen this done in other templates (i.e Template:Cluster). But if you feel strongly, then remove it is okay. I'm thinking keeping it is good because it prompts folks to enter a value, without it in the template unless you see other galaxies doing such, you wouldn't think to put in a parsecs value. Better yet, is there a way to have the parens only show up if there is a value? WilliamKF 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1181 Lilith

Hi George,

I've already made the move from 1181 Lilit to 1181 Lilith, since it seems clear and uncontroversial. You can do the same by using the "Move" button at the top of the page, and there's no need to go through Requested Moves. Cheers — SteveRwanda 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well - I still think I was right to move it. According to WP:SNOW it's permitted to do clear, uncontroversial things without following due process if it's clear where that process is going. The WP:RM page is crowded enough without having completely clear cases there to waste people's time... SteveRwanda 09:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1569

Yes, putting back the other is fine (they don't disagree by much), it seems this galaxy is tricky to estimate the distance to. I noticed a 2006 paper refer to the 1988 paper, so maybe that work is still considered the best? Take a look at the 2003 paper and let me know if you think it is credible enough to supercede the 1988 work. However, in the 15 years between the papers, wouldn't the science have advanced to the point that the 2003 estimate is more reliable? WilliamKF 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feedback

Please keep the comments coming, you are more knowledgeable than I, so I appreciate your feedback. WilliamKF 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]